Trump’s Appeal to the Supreme Court

Former President Donald Trump is seeking U.S. Supreme Court review to overturn the civil verdicts arising from writer E. Jean Carroll’s claims, his attorneys said in a new filing; the Court has not indicated whether it will take the case. The request targets the 2023 jury finding that Trump sexually abused Carroll and defamed her, as well as the separate 2024 defamation damages award, according to prior case records summarized by Reuters. On WKU’s campus and around Fountain Square Park, the move adds fresh fuel to conversations that have persisted since the January damages verdict.

Trump’s lawyers have argued in earlier appeals that the verdicts misapplied defamation law and due-process standards, positions they are now asking the Supreme Court to review, based on appellate briefs and post-trial filings cited by Reuters. Legal scholars note that the Court accepts a small fraction of petitions—historically around 1–2%—and rarely disturbs jury fact-finding in state-law tort cases, per the Court’s own process overview and historical rates described by SCOTUSblog. The Supreme Court’s docket had no public ruling on the request as of publication; readers can monitor filings on the Court’s docket search.

How the Carroll Case Reached This Point

Carroll, a longtime advice columnist, alleged Trump sexually assaulted her in a Manhattan department store in the mid-1990s and defamed her when he denied the claim decades later. In May 2023, a federal jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation and awarded Carroll $5 million, according to Reuters. That verdict came under New York’s Adult Survivors Act, which temporarily allowed certain older claims of sexual misconduct to proceed.

In January 2024, a second jury considering separate defamatory statements by Trump set damages at $83.3 million, a figure that included punitive damages, as reported by Reuters. Trump has continued to deny Carroll’s allegations while appealing both outcomes. He posted a bond to pause collection on the judgment during appeal, according to court filings summarized by Reuters.

Key moments included Carroll’s testimony describing the alleged encounter, testimony from corroborating witnesses, and expert evidence on reputational harm and damages—elements that jurors cited in their findings, based on trial coverage by national outlets including The Associated Press. Those proceedings set the stage for Trump’s current bid to elevate the case to the Supreme Court.

Growing Local Debate

In Bowling Green, reactions track familiar lines: some residents see the Supreme Court petition as a necessary check on punitive defamation awards, while others view it as an effort to relitigate facts that juries already decided. Conversations among WKU students and faculty have focused on what the case signals about free speech standards for public figures versus accountability for harmful falsehoods, according to faculty roundups and civic programming highlighted by WKU’s Political Science department.

Local Republicans and Democrats have framed the stakes differently in recent months. GOP-aligned voices emphasize concerns about expansive liability chilling political speech, while Democratic-leaning advocates contend the verdicts show defamation law working as intended for private citizens, themes echoed across national commentary in the wake of the 2024 damages award, per summaries by AP. Bowling Green Local has requested comment from leaders of the Warren County Republican and Democratic parties; we will update with any responses.

Local Impact: Bowling Green

• WKU classes that follow the courts—political science, media law, and pre-law seminars—are likely to leverage the case as a timely case study in defamation and appellate review, according to the department’s public course descriptions and past civic forums hosted on campus.

• For local media and small businesses, the question is whether the Supreme Court signals any shift in standards for public-figure defamation and punitive damages; any change could influence risk calculations for newsrooms and public communications across south-central Kentucky.

Voices & Evidence

Trump’s legal team has consistently argued the verdicts conflict with First Amendment protections and due process, echoing points raised in their Second Circuit filings and post-trial motions summarized by Reuters. Carroll’s attorney, Roberta Kaplan, has maintained that two juries affirmed Carroll’s credibility and that the judgments reflect the evidence and law applied at trial, according to statements reported by AP.

National legal analysts caution that petitions like this face long odds. The Supreme Court rarely grants review to reweigh jury findings and typically looks for conflicts in appellate rulings or significant federal questions, a pattern noted in Court statistics and practice guides from SCOTUSblog and the Court’s FAQ. Relatedly, while some justices have signaled interest in revisiting aspects of public-figure defamation doctrine under New York Times v. Sullivan, the Court has repeatedly declined to take cases directly challenging that precedent in recent years, as tracked by SCOTUSblog’s coverage.

What’s Next for Both Parties

If the Supreme Court declines to hear the case, the Second Circuit appeals over the Carroll verdicts continue on the existing timetable, and the judgments remain in place unless altered on appeal, per appellate procedure explained by SCOTUSblog and the Court’s FAQ. If the Court grants review, it would set a briefing schedule and could consider stays on enforcement while the case proceeds—an outcome that would push final resolution into a future term.

Procedurally, respondents typically have 30 days to oppose a certiorari petition, and the justices consider petitions at closed-door conferences with orders released on designated days, according to the Supreme Court’s rules and FAQs. Bowling Green Local will track the docket and update readers on any stays, response deadlines, or conference dates that could change the calendar.

What to Watch

• Docket updates: Look for a response deadline and any stay requests on the Supreme Court’s docket.

• Appellate track: Watch the Second Circuit appeal schedule; absent Supreme Court intervention, that will control next steps on the judgments.

• Campus conversation: WKU forums and classes are likely to pick up the case as a real-time example of how defamation law and appellate review intersect, with implications for student journalists and local media.